Talk:Political status of Puerto Rico/Archives/2010/November

Political status bill co-sponsors

For months, the names, states and political affiliations of the meager supporters of the Senate political status bill endorsed by anti-statehooders has been in this article. My addition of similar information regarding the co-sponsors of the bill supported by statehooders is equally relevant, although lengthier because the number of co-sponsors is greater. It is relevant to say that one bill had 4 sponsors and the other 15. The long-standing list of the four, and the recently added list of the 15 allows readers to gather, without further time-consuming research, the curious mix of senators on both sides of the issue. I suggest that both lists remain and that one of the lists not be selectively removed. Pr4ever (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Relax, and let's not politicize this paragraph. I would have done the same thing if someone wrote "The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming." ¿Reason????? It's just bad writing - that's all. It's bad writing to list out the names, etc, of the 14 Senators if there is no reason to. It detracts from the smooth flow of the reading of the article.

I do agree with you that "it is relevant to say that one bill had 4 sponsors and the other 15". But I disagree that the 14 sponsor names must be listed. Honestly, I was dissapointed to read that your motivation in adding the 14 names appears to have been political in nature.

Nevertheless, I also agree with your second observation that there is a "curious mix of senators on both sides of the [aisle that support the] issue", and I think it is relevant to make that point also. However, couldn't that point be made equally well if we just said something like "A bipartisan Senate bill supporting the implementation of the White House report recommendations was filed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Ken Salazar (D-CO) and co-sponsored by 14 other senators, including 8 Democrats and 6 Republicans."??? Don't you agree?

In addition, a statement like this will also fulfill your concern regarding "allow[ing] readers to gather, without further time-consuming research, the curious mix..." And with the inclusion of the required citation, the reader can easily go there to find out WHO the 14 senators were, their states, etc.

Why are the 4 supporters of the other bill listed? IMO because, again, the list is not that long and as such it does not significantly affect the smooth flow of the reading. If you thought that that was politically motivated, I have not thought for a second it was.

I am not going to politicize the paragraph; as a reminder, I am, in fact, TRYING to get this article to GA status. And the list of the 14 senators names, states and affiliations will be seen as an eyesore by any reviewer - analogous to the list of US states above.

I couldn't agree with you more that the article needs to present a balanced view, and your "the whole history" section above is enlightening. However, adding that long a list of bill supporters without setting the stage or following up diminishes, imo, the value of the article more sgnificantly than it enhances it by virtue of the attempt that is being made to highlight the existence of "the mix" using such detailed, minute data.

(As a reminder, you seem to have overlooked adding the citation source, which I presummed you already have given the list of specific names. Hopefully you can add that shortly.)

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Igartúa IV

The full cite for Igartúa IV is Gregorio Igartúa, et al v. United States of America, No. 09-2186, decided Nov. 24, 2010. The only electronic link found so far is the El Vocero article referenced in my edit. Pr4ever (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)